What event could bring together on the national stage a U.S. Senator, the Commissioner of the NFL, the diabolical uber-coach of the most powerful franchise in all of football, and an assistant golf pro from Hawaii?

It's not the latest Adam Sandler movie, it's Spygate, although I could almost hear the promo in the background saying "Adam Sandler is an assistant golf pro in Hawaii, when suddenly…"

After the accuser Matt Walsh was interviewed by HBO, and the accused Bill Belichick was interviewed by CBS, the trained eye could tell that Captain Sweatshirt might be trying to cover up his guilt a little. How can you tell? Glad you asked.

First, let's recall the accusation. Walsh stated that the New England Patriots illegally videotaped the opposing team's signals. They then had a player memorize the signals, and before each play that player would tell the offensive coordinator what defense was called. The coordinator would then relay that to the quarterback via the helmet microphone. That is the accusation.

So how do you know Billy's guilty? Let's analyze his response.

Rule 1) Attack the accuser "peripherally," but not the direct accusation.

Walsh was a scrub, or as Belichick put it in his irritating and incredulous tone, "He was the third assistant to the videographer!"

Belichick barely knew Walsh and couldn't "pick him out of a lineup."

Walsh didn't meet with the coaching staff or players to talk about "football stuff."

Walsh was fired for poor performance (I guess he filmed the wrong sideline or something), and for secretly recording a conversation with his boss (anybody else curious about that one).

Belichick "heard" that Walsh has changed his story a little over time about the St. Louis Rams walkthrough tape.

Ok, so he's a scrub, but is he a liar?

Rule 2) Don't directly dispute the allegation.

So you established that the accuser is a loser who got fired, well done. What about the actual accusation itself? Is he a liar?

If someone was falsely accusing me of something, I think that would be the first card I played. The fact that Belichick spends all his time pointing out what a first-rate loser the accuser is, and none of his time pointing out that the accusation is false, is a clear indication that Belichick doesn't want to address the specific allegation.

Here he gets a huge assist from Armen Keteyian, who chokes during the interview and doesn't follow up on how the tapes were actually used (pre-arranged agreement perhaps). Which leads to Rule 3…

Rule 3) Speak vaguely.

This was my favorite part of the interview, bar none, and I'll paraphrase.

How were the illegal tapes used? They were given to Ernie Adams (one of Belichick's top assistants) and they were used as part of "a mosaic."

What? A mosaic? What does that even mean? This wasn't supposed to be an abstract question Bill, it was concrete, How did you use the tapes?

"It was put together with a lot of other information about what the team did." That's enlightening.

Again, how big of a thumbs down can we give Keteyian for allowing this exchange to fly:

How did you use the illegal tapes?

It was a mosaic.

Thanks! That's clear, next question….

Mark McGwire still owns the best dodge quote ever of "I'm not here to talk about the past," but I think I'm adding "It's a mosaic" to the Hall of Fame of dodge quotes.

For you sticklers, Armen did ask if there was "a calculated, deliberate system put in place to take advantage of the tapes."

Decent follow-up question, right? Please. Do you know how broad that can be interpreted (see Rule 4 below about Belichick's interpretation skills)? Why not directly ask if the signals were being relayed through the coordinator to the quarterback? Why?

Rule 4) Check Belicheat's (I changed my mind) story.

Ok folks, you're smart people. Here's part of the rule, word … for … word:

"…videotaping of any kind, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club members during the game."

So, you mean to tell me, that Belichick actually believed this meant he could videotape the other team's offensive or defensive signals during the game? Does anyone on planet Earth actually believe he didn't know he was cheating?

For all the New England faithful that are crying about how their beloved team is being picked on, please tell me you actually believe that Belichick, and his entire staff, interpreted the above rule in a manner that meant it was ok to videotape signals. Folks, Johnny Cochran couldn't argue out of this one, and he was 10 times the defense attorney that Belichick is.

So in conclusion, Belichick is attacking the accuser without actually addressing the direct accusation, speaking in vague terms, bringing up issues that are completely irrelevant, and his misinterpretation story is about as hard to swallow as a six-foot porcupine? You do the math…

Addendum: For the record, Belicheat (somebody should have patented that) did point out that someone could just as easily sit in the press box and write down the signals, which would be a pain, but is technically accurate.

Finally, Walsh worked for the New England Patriots and is now a golf pro in Hawaii. Is his dad in the mob or something? How does he get all the coolest jobs? What's next, Astronaut? Victoria Secret photographer? King?

I'm smarter than this clown and nobody's touched my resume since 1999. Somebody call Arlen Spector…